The arguments for AV seem to be as follows i) whilst it isn't PR it shows that the current system is reformable and will be a short step to better electoral reform ii) the current system is far worse iii) it will give the Lib Dems more seats and iv) Andrew Rawnsley supports it.
Normally argument iv would be a good enough reason for me. Rawners is a fine and astute political columnist. i)and ii) are quite persuasive, as Polly Toynbee points out, who wants to risk a return to the 80s where an extreme Tory government changed the country radically without a majority consent of the people?
And then there's option iii).
Estimates are the the Lib Dems would have gained over thirty more seats at the last general election, over twenty of which would have come from the Tories. We would now have a Lib Lab government, David Milliband would be having regular love-ins with Nick Clegg and there'd be no Andrew Lansley.
The world alas has moved on, the Lib Dems reneged on their promises on tuition fees, they enthusiastically back Lansley and to anyone who doesn't agree with them, they adopt the same self-righteous tone of protest that they adopted in opposition and simply suggest that we don't understand it.
And therein lies the problem. The biggest block to AV is the LibDems themselves.
As I stated in a previous blog, for a party that expected to be in Coalition for so long, they proved remarkably inept operators. Who on earth now would like these unprincipled and deceitful rogues deciding who does and who doesn't form future governments?
If the AV referendum is lost then all future electoral reform will be shelved for a very long time and Lib Dems wil have no one to blame but themselves.
